ArticleObesity surgery2015
The web-surfing bariatic patient: the role of the internet in the decision-making process.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Social media use among patients before and after metabolic and bariatric surgery: a systematic review.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Content and quality of smartphone applications for bariatric surgery: A review and content analysis.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Online Search Trends Related to Bariatric Surgery and Their Relationship with Utilization in Australia.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Large language models and bariatric surgery patient education: a comparative readability analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, and online institutional resources.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Quality, Accountability, and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Optic Neuritis.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Article
- Bariatric Evaluation Through AI: a Survey of Expert Opinions Versus ChatGPT-4 (BETA-SEOV).Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Assessment of electronic patient education materials for adolescent bariatric surgery candidates: An environment scan.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Follow-Up, Safety, and Satisfaction with Tele-bariatric Follow-Up Implemented During the COVID-19 French Lockdown: a 2-Year Follow-Up Study.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Examining the Accessibility of Online Patient Materials for Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Information needs of patients undergoing bariatric surgery in Germany: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Discussion of Weight Loss Surgery in Instagram Posts: Successive Sampling Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2021Article
- Assessing the Quality, Content, and Readability of Freely Available Online Information for Patients Regarding Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Seminars in ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Patients response to pre-operative counseling for the appropriate type of bariatric surgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Patient preferences regarding bariatric/metabolic procedures: a survey of Korean obese candidates for surgery.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Prevalence and Outcomes of Web-Based Health Information Seeking for Acute Symptoms: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Analysis of Portuguese language blogs about bariatric surgery: key doubts of internauts regarding the postoperative period.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2019Observational
- Readability of online patient-based information on bariatric surgery.Health promotion perspectives · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth-related information on the Internet is constantly increasing, but its quality and accountability are difficult to assess. Patients browse the Net to get more information, but the impact of the Internet on their decisions about surgical techniques, referral centers, or surgeon choice are still not clear. This study aimed to describe the role of the Internet in the decision-making process of obese patients seeking bariatric surgery.
methodsTwo hundred and twelve candidates for bariatric surgery were asked to answer a questionnaire evaluating their access to the Internet, the usefulness and trustworthiness of Internet-retrieved information, the verification of the information, and the role of the information in the decision-making process.
resultsTwo hundred and twelve patients answered the questionnaire. Of these, 95.1% had access to the Internet and 77.8% reported having researched about bariatric surgery. Their main interests were the surgical techniques (81.4%) and other patients' experiences (72.3%). The favorite Web sites were those affiliated to public hospitals or edited by other patients. The accountability of the e-information was mainly evaluated by discussion with the general practitioner (GP) (83.0%) or family members and friends (46.8%). One patient in four decided to undergo bariatric surgery mainly based on e-information, while discussion about treatment options with the GP and the hospital reputation were taken into account in 77.8 and 51.7% of cases, respectively.
conclusionsMost patients seeking bariatric surgery search for health information online. E-information seems to have an important role in the decision-making process of patients who are candidates for bariatric surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25623374What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.